Welcome to the WetCanvas forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit our help center.

Paintings done, show hung ( all for sale except 4 which are NFS as I have kept them and are only available as prints and 1 on loan from the owners) – and in the first 36 hours of the show, 1 painting sold and 3 giclees were ordered of different NFS

Here are few pieces from the show. Now the photos of the paintings were shot quickly with my professional level digital camera but the light has been terrible and going outside in the snow was not an option. I have to send the photos to my print/giclee maker for color adjustment. They are reasonably close but not completely accurate.

I usually work in sizes where most people can find wall space for it. Very few people can commit space for 3' x 4' or the other large sizes – and that means you have automatically limited your market. They can always find room for thing 18 x 24 and smaller. I prefer to work in studio. You can not use my techniques and produce a painting in one session. Most are on and off the easel 4 -8 times as layers have to dry before proceeding. Further schlepping around all that equipment around is a pain in the backside and fishing gnats out of oil paints is a complete bore. If Monet had had a really good digital camera he wouldn’t have sat outside freezing to paint haystacks.

(1) 18 x 24 - hardboard “3 Sailboats”

500 feet from the house – bay opens to Lake MI. All 3 boats live here all summer and the red one belongs to friends. I just put them where I wanted them to be.

It’s a reverse focal point.

The background trees were done by underpainting a base color (the imprimatura) , then blocking a thin layer of colors loosely as tree/bush shapes (various greens, purples and blue), allowing the second layer to dry to moderate tackiness, then overglazing with a grey mix and then scumbling the wet glaze. You can’t see all the tones and colors in the back trees in the photo. Glazing is notoriously difficult to photograph as it slams the light back at the camera – makes my print maker nuts and it means having to set up the lighting to photograph very carefully. This is about as good as it gets without special lighting to photograph but is still not completely accurate on the colors in the trees or waters.

The reflections are glazes of the same color as the boat applied over the water color – again multiple layers and glazes. The water color serves as the underpainting for the reflections and automatically darkens the color of the boat to a deeper shade as a reflection. Glazing over the water gives ‘can not miss’ reflection colors.

(2) 16 x24 - hardboard “First Light”

Look left from the 3 sailboats and that is the east end of the bay where the river comes in – 500 ft from the house. Light area of the water and the background mist are an over-glaze. Sky is done wet-on-wet over a base underpainting and involves blending and feathering colors together on the painting– must be done in one sitting. Technique sometimes called ‘broken color’

(3) 14 x20 - canvas “Dinghy Regatta”

Quite large inland lake – over 20 sq mile surface - 1 mile up the road. Sails and hulls were wet-on-wet broken color. Water is multiple overlapping and adjacent small strokes of multiple shades and colors

(4) 16 X 20 – hardboard “Crystal Evening”

Same inland lake 1 mile up the road. Sky is another wet-on-wet blending and feathering colors together. We regularly get those blue-white-orange skies with ‘smoke clouds’ on hot humidity-rising summer nights. Light area of the water is again over-glazing the base painting.

(5) 18 x24 – hardboard “Fog Bank”

Made it up. Large sailboat is classic Sparkman-Stephens Concordia yawl built 1920s-1950s.

Painting is the very devil to photograph – this is not true on the colors but is about as close as it has gotten even with a professional level digital that can hit 4800 pixels. Probably have to send it to my print/giclee maker to get the photo for prints.

3 layers of glaze for the base colors of sky and the a 4th glaze to create the grayish mist that was scumbled

(6) 14 x 18 – canvas “Land’s End, Day’s End”

Made it up or at least the colors. 50+ years on boats and water – harbor of our yacht club 40 years ago but had only very very old black and white photo. Light on water and on boat hulls are again glazing on an underpainting.

(7) 16 x 20 – canvas “Reflections”

Photo so old I took it with one of the first SR cameras and film had to be sent out for developing. Started it as a practice piece – if an easy technique or a horribly hard technique both end with the same effect, choose to use the most difficult method – fiddled with it off and on for years. Subject presented technical problems - dark to light, diffuse background to detail, no identifiable light (the sky) to set the tone) etc. Water is all glazing – about 8-9 layers. Ditto the red building to achieve the faded red tone and then to make the paint look old and peeling.

(8) 12 x 16 – hardboard “Red White and Blue”

Made it up using classic wooden racing dinghies. Reflections are glazes of the same color as the boat. Hulls and wood trim on boats again are wet-on-wet blending the colors to create the variances in tone, shade and highlights.

(9) 16 x 24 – hardboard “Afternoon”

Harbor of next town over. The light & reflections really did shatter and dance on the water like that in my photo. Light in water are again glazes – 3 layers. The foreground waves are a base tone, then a broken color over-painting of a different tone and then the final darker shade.

(10) 22 x 26 - oil on hardboard “Walking the Beach”

Loaned by owners for show and then they get to take it home. Photographing a little light in places (ie: her pants, wave’s blues & greens & such areas) as compared to the painting. It was taken before it got its last touch-ups – like putting the wave froth back in around his left arm and fixing the end of the wave on the far right end where a small area had dried so light it had that gawd-awful ‘white table cloth dropped on the beach’ look.

The double portrait was done from a photo they provided which had been shot by a professional photographer of them. (See photo below the painting image.) Nasty on getting the details of her left hand – when the image is enlarged, the hand is just a mist of color from the light. Had to reduce the exposure of the photo to bring them to the foreground. And yes, the lake really is green and turquoise near shore.

It is largely glazing upon glazing – up to 3 or 4 layers over the underpainting – for the beach and wet sand. The dune is wet-on-wet of multiple colors and shades so that, for example, the tan contains greens, oranges, purples, golds etc and then glazed with the green. The wave is first done as an underpainting of the blues, purples and greens. Then very light shades of those tones are applied brokenly and then finally the areas of in various shades of white (in various thicknesses and depth so the under coats may or may not show through in varying degrees.) .

Hi KAS, Congrats on the sale of your painting,no doubt by the time you read this there will be a lot more red dots.
I have never done 'formal art tuition' so you have kind of lost me on some of your descriptions of glazes and layers etc, I usually just bash on till I think it looks right, seeing as I paint purely for my own pleasure, I don't think Id like to go to the bother of all those techniques, I'll leave them to you profesionals.
Anyway, I must be doing something right as I have 4 commisions from a gentleman in Norway,(2 already completed and sent) and the possibility of more
Thanks for letting us see the photos from your exhibition, by the way the colours look ok to me.
Once again good luck with more sales
Regards Jim
Ps I'm not too sure about the horizon line meeting the land in the figure painting.

Hi Kas, Given that you critique a lot of other people’s work I hope you don’t mind me critiquing yours. I’ll try to keep in consideration of the photo quality you have described.

Painting 1.
I would expect a bigger reflection in the water from the boats, for me it doesn’t really make an impression nor reflect the colours you are using in the hull of the boat. Also their shapes are clumsy and don’t have enough value.
The distant hills are vague, you might want to think about the repetition of the trees and rocks as they are not very interesting.

Painting 2.
The boats in the distance are lovely, very suggestive but your structure in the foreground left is heavy and detracts from this scene. I’m not convinced by your sunset and I think in essence you have too many different styles going on here ie. Impressionistic vs. something else.

Painting 3.

The sails have no value, there is no definite light direction, the sky is distracting, the water is dull and the horizon is even more so.

Painting 4.

Your sky is all muddy, and all of the clouds are going in the same direction which is repetitive. Your water is muddy and the object strutting from the right is maybe a jetty??? Lacks conviction.

Painting 5.
Can barely see it, I think this lacks description, and execution. I’m just guessing but your middle ground is that cloud or fog? Can’t tell

Painting 6.
For me more muddy sky, unconvincing reflections, where is the white reflections from the hull in the water? Further to this your use of colour in the boat windows does not reflect the time of day. Also, your mast’s aren’t straight.

Painting 7.
The boat in the foreground has no value, to me it doesn’t fit within this landscape. Also the middle ground boat has more light than the rest of the painting. Not sure if this was your intention but it doesn’t really fit within the whole piece. That building on the water’s edge is an unattractive structure, further to this the water beneath that does not describe any of this building’s reflections.

Painting No. 8.
Your reflections here are a mass rather than representing a ripple on the water.

Painting No. 9
For me this is your most successful painting here on WC. However your clouds don’t reflect very well in the water, they’re not quite believable.

Painting No. 10.
After seeing the reference photo compared to the painting there is a lack of direction of light in your painting given the sun direction, as with the couple who have no sun kissed light. Your waves are a mass and lack drama and description. Your sand misses the wet and the dry and the shadows. The distance in your painting lacks distance.

(1) that is exactly what that harbor looks like. And it is 1600 feet wide with the boats in the middle that is exactly how the reflections came out with a 4800 ixel camera with a long-range lense.

And you can not dick with the background when everyone looking at knows the scene - down to the color of the dinghy.

Sold

(2) Ditto that one. It is eactly looks down there with the docks. Its color value when greyscaled came out like this

Without realizing it, I had used the same massing as this

And ended up with the same type of focal point - the lightest point in the back of the scene.

Deposit on it while buyer decides

(3) I assume you can see the hulls - one side light one side dark; and the sails - lighter in the center, darker on the sides where they are bending

ANd that is exactly what little dinghies look like when racing at you in motion.

And yep, in reality the slight chop of the water is distracting.

Apparently owner of another gallery disagrees with you - that has sold and they intended to resell it.

(4) That is what the collapsible metal docks look like on that lake. Gallery wanted a sunset. And yeah clouds blow in the same direction because of the main lake - one of the 2 largest Great Lakes beng 500 feet away - with terrific winds sending the clouds over the big lake. That is how sky looks around here.

(5) I said it wasn't photgraphing well. In fact that painting dominates a 30 ft long wall because the colors are so intense and the light streaming in from the right pulls your eyes there to the point amidships to the bow of the yawl.

3 potential buyers have inquired - and for 2 of them it now down to whether spouses think it will 'go' with the living room

(6) Again. Whatever. My husband kept this one so it hung as NFS - but 3 giclees have been ordered of it since last week. Not one I particularly like but buyers seem to adore.

(7) Whatever. The original photo I show - which is this painting - won several awards back years ago when I got interested in photography for a time - was used on a calender even. I said this is glazing particularly in the water and does not photogrpah well at all without special lighting. Suggest you fix your monitor - the reds reflecting in the water under the building are tough to see in a photo but are most certainly there.

And the real building looks better in the photo and painting that it did in person. Old, peeling, tatty....your basic working waterfront in a small village in far north New England or Nova Scotia that not tarted up for tourists.

This was the waterfront of the small habor off Maine where family friends owned 3/4s of the island. Of course you have to have traveled and know the area to understand
.
(7) Again on the 3 dinghies. I suggest you fix your monitor. My monitor - and the painting - show darker ripples in the back and the lighter front dappling of the water with the light shifting across it.

(8) Highly doubtful that clouds back and behind the anchored boats - some 1/2 mile back would reflect in the front. That is exactly how the photos came out using that same powerful camera. Must be believable to people here - it sold on Monday.

(9) I assume you read the description. I said the colors in the waves did not photograph and washed out as did many details on the clothing.

As far as the light goes - there is very little distinct light in the photo - only a little on her shoulder (which is not as I said showing up well in the photo). I assume you can see how the light hits her hair in particular with storong color changes from left ot right or his back to front? Once again I suggest you adjust your monitor.

Apparently the owners of the painting disagree with you - as do others who have seen both in person. The comments uniformly are that the painting is an exact replica.

I would suggest either a new monitor or have someone take a look at your color settings or the screen glare. Why do I detect some seriously sour grapes from when I told you that a painting of a sailboat with a boom that went out past the stern of a boat so far it was almost double the length of the boat and qulited sails wouldn't sell to boaters and sailors in the US who were unfamilar with an obscure island craft from some remote part of the world?

Vega told you I raided Yachtworld for images when I needed a boat of a certain type! That is the Sparkman & STephens yawl. Now if I could jsut persuade my husband to buy her for me..... 48 footer, in Massachusetts, name is Whimbrel and a mere $285,000 LOL!

Am starting some other stuff. We live in the dunes - huge 300-400 ft high sand dunes on the shore.

Most people paint the dunes in 3 ways. The usual paintings of the dunes are the ones of the big dune just sticking out there like a big thumb in the kaje (bad composition); giant whitish piles of sand (I love the beach but to look at the sand pile without end are tediously dull - yawn); or the traditional peeking through/ around/past the trees/bushes/weeds at the strip of pretty water with a little sky above (cozy and pretty but not a sense of vast space or the sheer power of the wind and water.) I have always loved Sisley’s technique of loading the composition to the sky to convey the vastness of his subject – and he could do clouds like no one else. The starkness of the dunes –water-sky would lend itself to a minimalist approach to portray the intensity of the colors and contrasts.

Going to see how it would work to reduce it to the 3 elements - sand, water, sky. The dunes grasses add some green or rust. The changing light makes the sand go from mud brown to white and the water from steel grey to turquoise. The sky would dominate - at least around 60%.

Of course this assumes that husband and critters won't object to my prolonging the stench of turps and hearing "don't touch!"

Hi Kas, going by the amount of sales you say you are making, you should be able to get your Sparkman & Stephen, and one for your husband as well!.
Make sure you get one with rigging though,and not with the forestay attached to the pulpit, as in your painting. Is this a local method of rigging, as it seems to be the same on some of your other boats, if so I appologise, we seem to do it differently over here.
Look forward to seeing the 'Dunes', and your poor 'husband critter' has my heart felt sympathy!!,
Jim

Katherine - I have read this thread along with a previous thread in which you were extremely critical about a digital drawing and I have a deep concern for what seems to be an inability to communicate without coming off like a know-it-all. That feeling has been confirmed by your reaction to Vicki B's post, voicing her opinion of your work. If you detect "sour grapes" as you stated, then you only have yourself to blame. There is an old standard for giving critisism in the workplace and it ceratinly should be the same here on WC. It is called the "Critisim Sandwich". You say something complimentary and then voice your concerns and then finish with another compliment. You come off as truly interested in their future success and yet you have made your point of concern.

I'll give you an example........ Your work shows that you have a good crasp on color. Your style is probably the reason you have been offered your own show. However, your work doesn't seem to translate to the computer monitor. I have a new monitor and I have had it color corrected to a precise degree and your work comes off flat. I also have concerns about two of your paintings. The first is the perspective on the red boathouse in painting #7. It is really way off and appears that the boathouse is eventually going to fall into the water. I think the couple walking on the beach in #10 is probably your best work, but I am suspicious that they were either projected or traced onto your canvas. They appear much too exact to the photo to be hand drawn. Nothing wrong with using a little help, but it should be acknowledged in your description. You obviously have a great love for the water and marine craft and with some work, you could probably become an accomplished portrayer of same.

I'm pretty sure that you aren't going to like what I have posted and that's OK. My main reason for writing this was to make everyone aware that we don't need to be mean or defensive when posting on this Forum. I have never seen it in the past and I hope I never have to read anything like this again, in the future.

My sincerest apologies to the forum for dropping my standards in critiques so low.

KAS there are no sour grapes, however I'm interested in how you personally felt when I delivered this very negative critique of your work. I have been unfortunate to come across your very negative, attacking critiques on a number of occasions now and wonder if you have anything nice to say to anybody at all.

KAS I can't ell you how pleased I was to see you posted some of your work.
I hope you have a successful show. Whats the name of the gallery you are exhibiting at? I'm going to be visiting my nephew in Michigan next month and would love to see them IRL.